Saturday, April 30, 2011

Progressives, socialists and many liberals seek "globalism", as they believe that all persons should have the same - same wealth, same housing, same this and that.

Sane Americans should be vehemently opposed to globalism, simply because there is only one way to "equalize" the world's wealth and resources - by having the rich nations give up their wealth. The world's resources are limited.

Look at it in its simplest form --- there are 5 people. 4 of those have $5 each, while the 5th (you) has $80. To equalize the wealth, you would have to give up $60 of your $80, leaving you with only $20 so the other 4 could also have $20.

On a larger scale, it means you would have to give up 75% or more of everything you have - even if you are considered "poor" by American standards. That's because even America's poor are actually rich compared to many people in Third World Nations. So even if you are on welfare, you would have to give up much of what you have. Say good-bye to that nice home, college for your kids, that trip to Disneyworld, the iPhone...

Here is some perspective --- all of the world's wealth is estimated to be between $40-$44 trillion. With nearly 7 billion people (and growing), that means everyone would only have $6,000 on which to support themselves.

How many of you want to try living on $6,000? How much would you have to give up in order to have a net worth of just $6,000?

Moreover, what incentive do you have to go out and try to better yourself when the law of the land (globalization/socialism) says you cannot better yourself, because if you did, that would mean someone else would have to give up some of what they have so you could have "extra".
So, why would anyone innovate? Work hard? Or even bother to get a better education (assuming you could afford to do so)?

Now understand this simple fact: it would not matter. People will not change who they are. Some will save; some will spend; some will waste; some will steal. Human nature will guarantee that within 2 weeks the wealth would already start shifting back to where it was, if left unregulated. Some hard-working entreprenuer will come up with something that others will pay for, and he will grow richer while they get poorer.And that is how it should be - if you doubt that, read the parable of the talents.

Now, the only way to for socialism to prevent unequal distribution is through strict regulation. Get this straight - every regulation is a restriction on freedom. The more regulation there is, the less free you are. Check out Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Cuba...

Before you praise the "fairness" of golbalization, stop and think what it would mean to YOU and to YOUR FAMILY. And take a moment to realize that it would stifle innovation, kill incentive and remove all excxitement from life, as you would not be allowed to strive for something better.

That is not fairness. That is not even "life". That is mere existence.

And for those who remain unconvinced, look at the historical case studies - the USSR, which never had a "Disneyworld" or anything else that was innovative, fun or exciting. Or look at Sweden today - arguably the most socialist country that takes everyone's income for taxes, which is then redistributed into "equal" services for all. In case you missed it, Sweden has the highest suicide rate in the world. It's a lot easier to give up your life if there is so little to live for.

Frankly, if people elsewhere in the world want to have what America has, they should simply follow our example and do what America has done for 250 years. If they are unwilling to overthrow a restrictive, dictatorial government and stand for freedom, and then use that freedom to prosper, then they deserve to have exactly what they have now.

Freedom and wealth come at a price. Anyone unwilling to pay the price deserves neither.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

Most folks are aware of the debate that has been surrounding vaccinations and its possible link to autism. Frankly, I do not think that is the real issue.

Widescale vaccinations in schools began in the early 1950's. I was one of the "guinea pigs". At that time, while polio was an issue, other diseases were not so much - asthma was relatively rare (as was autism), diabetes was not all that common and HIV/AIDS was unheard of, even though HIV has been around for thousands of years.

By the time that first generation of vaccinated kids reached maturity, all those afflictions suddenly began to spike, and HIV, which had never been able to afflict humans on any real scale, was running rampant.

Now consider this --- the human body develops a strong immune system by creating anti-bodies to fight off any threats. If the body never experiences the threats, the immune system remains weak, which makes us more susceptible to later threats. But vaccinations do the work for the immune system. Since the immune system no longer has to do its own job, it remains weak. And this may be the very reason why a disease that strikes our immune system (HIV/AIDS) is now able to affect us.

And it may also be responsible for the huge spike in other diseases, also running rampant since that first generation of vaccinated kids began having kids of their own.

Certainly, vaccinations can protect us from certain diseases. But is the price of the protection an immune system too weak to protect us from others?

Personally, I believe the only vaccinations we should be forcing onto our kids are those that protect us from a very deadly and debilitating disease for which we have no other cure, such as polio. But all these other vaccinations for diseases that rarely kill, or for which we have other "after-the-fact" cures should be outlawed. By reducing the number of vaccinations, we encourage the human immune system to do its own job, and grow stronger.

The Bible says what we do not use the Lord will take from us. Well, if that is true, and if we no longer use our immune system, we may be in for a long, bad ride if we keep using widescale vaccinations. Are we, in fact, saving individuals at the expense of the entire race?

Monday, April 25, 2011

What is Donald Trump's true objective in his run-up to a presidential bid?

Here is the story you have not heard - at least, not all of it.

--- Trump was pro-choice until he decided to run as a republican.

--- Trump contributed to Obama's 2008 campaign.

--- Trump said Nancy Pelosi was a great House Leader.

--- Trump fully supports ObamaCare's Universal Health Plan

--- Trump has made the following political contributions:

11/8/2010- $2,700-Democratic Party of Delaware

10/21/2010 -$2,400- Anthony Weiner (D)

9/20/2010- $10,000 – Democratic Committee of New York City

2/18/2010 – $2,000- Anthony Weiner (D)

4/7/2010 -$1,000 Charles Schumer (D)

3/26/2009- $2,400 – Harry Reid (D)

8/11/2009 -$2,000 – Bill Nelson (D)

5/20/2009 – $2,000 -Charles Schumer (D)

Out of his 31 donations 21 of them went to very liberal Democrats or Democratic Committees, 7 went to Republicans, 2 went to Independents (both of those to Charlie Crist). His organization contrinuted 7 times to the ultra-liberal Charles Schumer. He also contributed to Hillary (D) (twice), Gillibrand (D) twice. He even contributed to Rahm Emanuel.

Considering all of the above (which only touches on Trump's liberal/progressive bent), it makes one wonder why Trump has chosen to runas a Republican. And I am reminded how Ross Perot split the party in the 90's and gave Clinton the Oval Office.

Could it be that Trump wants Obama to have a second term, and has chosen to run as a Republican for the sole purpose of splitting the Republican party?

I think the answer is obvious, given what we really know about Trump and where he really stands on issues.

Friday, April 22, 2011

When President Bush was in office and gas prices rose to $3.00 per gallon, the mainstream media told everyone it was not because of OPEC and speculators - instead, it was "Bush's fault" because he represented "Big Oil". The Bush family were oil people of Texas. Now, gas prices are up to $4.00 per gallon and expected to rise to $5-$6, but the media is now telling a different story - that the fault lies with OPEC ripping us off, and speculators driving up prices.

While it may be true to some extent that prices are affected by OPEC and speculators, that is not the real reason prices are sky-rocketing.

First, let us look at a scenario. Let's say you have $20 with which to buy a pair of cheap $20 jeans. The jeans company needs to get $20 if they are to make a profit. But then the government makes your money worth only one-half as much. Your $20 is now worth only $10, though it still LOOKS like $20, and they let you call it $20. But the fact remains - it's only worth $10. Because the value of your money has been cut in half, the jeans company must now raise the price to $40 - that's the only way they can still get a REAL $20.

This is called INFLATION, and it is what happens when the government places itself so far into debt that it has to print more money - money that is not backed by anything at all except a promise to pay.

So, now you know - gas prices, food prices, ALL prices are going up because the government has driven down the value of a dollar. Of course, gas prices are going up fastest because there are those other issues of OPEC and speculators. But if the administration had not driven us so deeply into debt, forcing the Federal Reserve to print hundreds of billions of "extra" dollars, gas prices would never have hit $3.00 per gallon. Yes, they would have risen - but not by this much. Not by a long shot.

It also did not help when the administration advertised to our enemies at OPEC that America would cut its own attempts to drill for oil. Offshore drilling would be shut down, and new wells in America would not get permits. This told OPEC that America was placing itself at the mercy of OPEC for years to come, giving them license to drive up prices by reducing their own production - which they recently announced.

So I have to laugh when Mr. Obama says he will create a commission to look into why gas prices are spiking. It's funny because it is Obama's own policies that are causing it. But that is not what his commission will find, I guarantee it. No, they will find that "speculators" and OPEC are to blame. And if there is any way on Earth to blame the "rich", they will do so.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Remember when former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass this (healthcare) bill in order to find out what's in it."? Well, now Ms Pelosi has made yet another incredibly ignorant statement - she now says, "Elections Shouldn't Matter as Much as They Do"

And to think - for 60 years I believed that was the PURPOSE of elections - for them to determine the course of government. In other words, nothing matters more.

But that is the Pelosi "Progressive" mindset. Progressives do not believe in democracy except when they are the ones who win the election. Her kind of "democracy" is much like the Middle East concept of it, where the bad guys use a democracy to get elected (i.e. Hamas), and once in office they take over and put an end to democracy.

Gee - that's exactly what Hugo Chavez did, also.
It's long past time to put Pelosi and her ilk "out to pasture". They certainly do not belong in any position of power greater than road kill pick-up operators.

Friday, April 8, 2011

A few moments ago Harry Reid addressed the Senate, objecting to the defunding of Planned Parenthood. In his objection he stated there were many women in his family and he wanted to preserve funding for Planned Parenthood to insure they would have access to things like cancer screening.

But here's the irony - and the dishonesty...it was Harry Reid who helped force through ObamaCare, which is supposed to assure all Americans access to things like cancer screening, anyway. Is Sir Harry now trying to tell us that ObamaCare will NOT insure us, and provide access to medical care as promised? Or is he simply using this as an excuse to block a bill to fund the government, and preserve taxpayer funding of abortion?

Reid has already stated unequivically that ObamaCare will cover us, so the only other explanation for his pathetic ploy is to preserve public funding of abortion.

Harry Reid is a dangerous and real threat to this country, as he allows his own quest for power to get in the way of what is best for the country. That is the highest form of political corruption.

Our leaders should at least be honest. If Harry Reid wants to preserve funding for Planned Parenthood because he believes the taxpayer should fund the killing of the unborn, then he should have the courage of his convictions to stand up and SAY so. But if his convictions are something to be ashamed of, then perhaps he should change his convictions to something he can instead be proud of.

In any case, Sir Harry, just once I would like for you to be honest. Don't hide behind bogus excuses like "cancer screenings" when, in fact, women can get cancer screenings anywhere - and nowhere in the Constitution does anyone have the right to force someone else (the taxpayer) to pay for another persons' medical tests.

If the people of Nevada had an ounce of sense or honor, they never would have elected this pathetic excuse of a man. And if the Democrat Senate had an ounce of integrity, they would vote him out of the leadership position - he is making partisan clowns of them all.

Haven't ANY of them asked WHY the voters so overwhelmingly elected Republican in the last election?

Today on the AOL version of Huffington Post there was a very long story about the 14,000 missing votes in the wisconsin election for a supreme court justice. It appears that most of the "lost" votes were for the conservative justice, giving him a wide lead.

But 99% of the HuffPost story was written in such a way as to imply that the woman who "found" the votes is a "known partisan Republican", and implied voter fraud in favor of the Republican candidate. But at the very end of the story was this one, small piece which appears to have been added as a minor afterthought, but tells the whole story - which is 180 degrees opposed to HuffPosts insinuations:

"Also at the press conference, Ramona Kitzinger, a Democratic member of the county board of canvass, agreed with Nickolaus [the Republican counter] and said they "went over everything and made sure that all the numbers jived up, and they did."

"I'm the Democratic vice chair of Waukesha County, so I'm not going to stand here and tell you something that's not true," Kitzinger said."

So, HuffPost/AOL spends 50 paragraphs trying to convince readers that the Republicans committed voter fraud and ends up with a short statement by the Democrats own vice chair that says the opposite.

The REAL story here is that HuffPost/AOL devoted 99% of their "story" to something they know is a complete fabrication, and that the truth was left unsaid until the last few words.

Nice going, HuffPost/AOL. Once again you flex your media muscle to fire up unsubstantiated rumors and cause a greater rift between fellow Americans, all for the singular purpose of pushing your liberal, socialist agenda. America is getting tired of people like you.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Pundits coast-to-coast cannot quite get a handle on the Trump phenomenon regarding a run for the presidency. He LOOKS like he's running. He SOUNDS like he's running. But is he?

Here's what I think...

Start with the premises that Trump wants Obama replaced in 2012, at any cost, as Trump is a businessman and Obama's policies are seen as anti-business.

But Trump is a showman. An egomaniac. He is not a politician. So I believe Trump is doing this to "do the heavy lifting" for Republican candidates. The candidates WANT to attack the President, but are afraid to be seen as "negative". So Trump has decided to do the attacking for them, to show why voters should vote AGAINST Obama, while leaving the candidates free to show why voters should vote FOR them. Consider Trump a diversion - someone for the press to attack while the true candidates press forward.

But why would Trump do that? Because he IS an egomaniacal showman. It puts him in the limelight, which is where he insists on being. He loves the publicity, and loves to stir controversy.

And if it so happens that he becomes politically popular enough to get the nomination, he'll take it. His ego is that big.

Frankly, I hope the American voter is smarter than that. We do not need a showman, nor an egomaniac. We need a true leader. But I can't help but chuckle every time Trump attacks the president's policies, because I know he is merely trying to chip away at and weaken the president, making it easier for other candidates to take him down.

And THAT is what Trump is doing. He is having a ball being the top media story, while helping his party get a foothold. I don't think he has any intention of becoming president - but would take it if foisted upon him.

Friday, April 1, 2011

From the newswire --- "WASHINGTON – A bullish President Barack Obama said Friday that compromise is close with Republicans on $33 billion in budget cuts, and he warned that without a deal the ensuing government shutdown would "jeopardize our economic recovery" just as jobs are finally being created."

And if you listen to the mainstream media, you might believe this lie because the mainstream media support the Democrats and actively support socialism in the name of "social justice".

The problem is, it's not even close to being true. Speaker Boehner and Republicans state that no such compromise exists except in the minds of Democrats. So why the lie?

Democrats know that if they do not cut spending at least as much as the Republicans want (61 bil), the government may shut down. They also know if that happens, most voters will blame Democrats this time, simply because the people WANT spending to be cut big time.

So, Obama, Reid and Schumer want to try and pin a shutdown on the Republicans by first making this bogus claim that a compromise is at hand (when it isn't), and then when Republicans refuse to compromise "as agreed" (which they did not), the public would then blame a shutdown on Republicans for backing out.

It is dishonest deceit at the most low-down level I have ever seen. For Obama, Reid and Schumer to tell a lie, then when the Republicans refuse to honor their lie, to blame the Republicans for not following through.

It's time we, the people begin holding ANY politician accountable for using deception and lies to further their political agenda when the very health and welfare of our nation is at stake.

I just hope "the people" see this deception for what it is, and are smart enough to hold the Democrat politicians accountable for their actions.